Rewriting protocols of presidential elections in Russia (updated)

We have identified 22 rewritten final protocols from seven regions: Kemerovo Region (1), Moscow (7), Moscow Region (2), Saratov Region (2), Tyumen Region (3), Stavropol Krai (4), and Krasnodar Krai (3). 

Almost all lines of protocols analysed had been altered, apart three of them: the number of early voters, the number of ballot sheets issued ‘at home’, and the number of ballot sheets unaccounted as received. Other 17 lines of protocols had been corrected: either increased or decreased. 

Let us start with the lines with values increased, the 16th line of the protocol having undergone the most significant ‘corrections’ (votes for Vladimir Putin): in total, its value had grown by 4,660 votes in all protocols examined. 

To give more votes to one of the candidates, they had to be taken from other candidates to keep the balance, or the number of issued ballots had to rise. As commissions were rewriting protocols, they took both ways. Still, they preferred augmenting the turnout to taking votes from other candidates, as a rule. 

Therefore, figures in the following lines had to be increased: line 4 (ballot sheets issued at the polling station), +4067; line 8 (ballot sheets in stationary ballot boxes), +3931; and line 10 (valid ballot sheets), +3562. 

By the way, only Putin (+4,660) and Zhirinovsky (+72) enjoyed increase in their support among the candidates. Others suffered losses: Baburin lost 34 votes; Grudinin -464; Sobchak -108; Suraikin -39; Titov -75; and Yavlinsky -52. Values of protocols’ first lines shrank, too: the number of voters on the list decreased by 978. 

Such measures helped some commissions, such as the precinct electoral commission #3247 in Moscow Region, to raise the turnout by reducing the number of voters on the list, the term of fraction. 

Therefore, the commissions added 4,732 extra votes to two candidates, while taking away only 772 votes from the rest of the candidates. The enhancement of turnout by 3960 votes covered the difference. It explains the increase in lines 4, 8 and 10 of the final protocols. 

We also note that QR code on final protocols does not contribute to preventing the rewriting, though it helps the commissions to avoid mistakes during the vote count. In three polling stations in Moscow, voting results were cancelled: polling stations #1450, 1910 and 1439. Results of elections at polling station #443 in Moscow have been altered in GAS-Vybory (the automated system of elections) to meet the data of the primary protocol. However, there is no record of recount of votes at this polling station, though it is mandatory in a case of changing data in GAS-Vybory. 

With their announced election results still not cancelled, the current anti-rating leaders are:

Polling station #966 (Kemerovo Region), adding 674 votes to Putin’s result by taking votes from other candidates and increasing the number of issued ballot sheets by 492;

Polling station #68 (Stavropol Krai), adding 649 votes to Putin only by increasing the number of issued ballots, and taking nothing from other candidates; 

Polling station #801 (Stavropol Krai), adding votes to three candidates: Putin (569), Zhirinovsky (30) and Grudinin (25) just by raising the number of issued ballots by 624 and taking nothing from others; 

Polling station #1237 (Stavropol Krai) with the most ‘creative’ commission which has added something to almost all candidates, though being more generous to some of them: Baburin received 1 extra vote, Grudinin 5, Zhirinovsky 21, Putin 819, Sobchak 3, Suraikin 1 and Yavlinsky 1, while Titov lost 1 vote. All these enhancements were made possible by increasing the number of issued ballot sheets by 966. Out of them, only 851 were ‘given’ to candidates; therefore, the commission faked the presumed number of ballot sheets taken out of the polling station. 

Polling station #610 (Krasnodar Krai): apart from adding 266 votes to Putin’s result after taking these votes proportionally from other candidates, they also decreased the number of voters by 600 persons. Yet, they forgot to reduce the number of ballot sheets received from the territorial electoral commission, resulting in 2,210 (sic!) ballot sheets received for just 1,536 voters.